Donate today to keep Global Voices strong!

Our global community of volunteers work hard every day to bring you the world's underreported stories -- but we can't do it without your help. Support our editors, technology, and advocacy campaigns with a donation to Global Voices!

1Dmx.org was a site created to document human rights violations and police abuse that took place during the inauguration of current President Enrique Peña Nieto. After it was taken down, the site was uploaded in a mirror address, original.op1d.mx.

The press release stated that web domain company GoDaddy “confirmed that the Mexican agency that asked the American government to censor 1Dmx.org was the Specialized Center for Technological Response (CERT)”, a department of the National Security Commission of the Federal Police that has reported to the Ministry of Interior since 2013. Meanwhile, Mexican and US authorities have not released any official statements regarding this case.

How many pages has the Mexican government taken down? Why is the American government cooperating to censor free speech in other countries? Who should be under investigation: the authorities who repress or the citizens who document and denounce these abuses?

We invite netizens, the media, and the general public to defend the Internet as a free space where anyone can express, consult or discuss ideas for or against governments. If censorship doesn't respect borders, then liberty, information and solidarity shouldn't either.

A YouTube video uploaded by Operación1Dmx explains the story behind this censorship:

Danny O'Brien from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) further explains:

Luis Fernando García, 1dmx.org lawyer for the protestors, suspected that the call to bring down the site came from further afield than the U.S. embassy, and is suing several authorities in the Mexican courts to discover exactly which government agency passed on the order to the U.S. Embassy. Their court case, announced today, will continue to pursue the Mexican authorities to find the source of the demand, which the case contends violates Mexico's legal protections for freedom of expression.

On the morning of March 4, users of the Mexican web commented on the news. Twitter user Sandra Patargo, for example, pointed to the apparent double standard of the National Digital Strategy Coordinator of the Mexican Presidency:

The website Animal Político published some details about the press conference given by Luis Fernando García (@tumbolian), the website's lawyer, who reported that the hearing for the trial was scheduled for February 17; however, due to the resistance given by the Ministry of Interior and the Commission to hand in the information, it was moved to April 5:

“There's a control mindset in the government and they feel threatened by freedom of speech and organization that the Internet poses. Internet censorship is not hypothetical in Mexico; it is a reality. Besides the judgement, we demand an answer about why they are censoring the internet”, the lawyer stated.